All posts tagged gay marriage

Bob McCoskrie is blaming the deregistration of Family First as a charity on his views of the marriage bill – NZ Herald reports:

Family First NZ says it will be deregistered as a charity because of its views on gay marriage.

He said the decision was highly politicised and showed groups that think differently to the politically correct view will be targeted.

There’s some irony calling the decision “highly politicised “, it’s likely the decision was in part because of the highly political nature of much of Family First’s activities – see Family First stripped of charity status.

A homosexual man is taking the Anglican Bishop of Auckland to the Human Rights Tribunal after being rejected for training as a priest.

A hearing begins today following a complaint from the man, who says he feels discriminated against because of his sexuality.

It is understood the man – who is in a sexual relationship with his partner – has wanted to enter the church’s training programme for priests for years.

But after applying to enter after years of study, he was rejected by the Bishop Ross Bay, who approves entrants.

Bishop Bay told One News last night that he was simply following the church’s doctrines.

The man was rejected “by reason of the defendant not being chaste in terms of canons of the Anglican Church,” the bishop said.

That would appear to be unrelated, but in a discussion on this on Kiwiblog – Leave the churches alone- a swarm of commenters are blaming this on the marriage bill too:

Urban Redneck:

Social liberals who thought homosexual “marriage” was all about “love”, “commitment” and “equality” better wise up soon.

These homo-fascists will not stop until all opposition or disapproval of their sordid lifestyles are criminalized or eliminated thru the legislative and enforcement power of government.

Scott:

Don’t worry DPF – the churches will get hammered and will lose their status as charities fairly soon. And this is already happening.

Bob McCroskey at Family first has emailed that his organisation is about to lose its status as a charity explicitly because of its advocacy of traditional marriage, as being between a man and a woman.

That’s the trouble when you don’t believe in God. The state becomes your God. So the state In its Godlike wisdom has decided that the views of family first are unacceptable and so it will be deregistered as a charity. Its views, that marriage is between a man and a woman, are now deemed not in the public interest.

This will happen to the churches shortly. Apart from those churches that cave in and decide to ordain homosexuals and become gay friendly and other unscriptural nonsense.

So persecution will occur. The gay lobby will brook no opposition.

Andre:

But without a firm foundation for your laws and customs anything is possible and quite bizarre elitist brainfarts become law as the ridiculous concept of homosexual “marriage” becoming possible so firmly attests

Scott again:

So we believe that happiness and prosperity in a nation and in the people come when we follow God’s laws. When we willfully put in place laws that are against God’s teaching, such as gay marriage, then we can expect our nation to decline and its people to suffer.

When I said:

I don’t see what this has to do with the marriage bill. And if it did, so what?

Is any gay grievance from now on going to be blamed on the marriage bill?

kowtow responded:

It’s all about equality. So it all comes together under the socialist banner of “equality”.

To some any threat to their religious beliefs is seen as a threat to society and anything associated with this is regarded as a part of the same assualt on their church.

With Colin Craig and Family First targeting next year’s election as a way to campaigning for what they believe in this targeting of any gay grievance is likely to continue.

When Parliament passed Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill on Wednesday night, it was a conscience vote worthy of the description.

The bill succeeded, as it deserved to, because it reflects the view – the gradually changed view – of a nation which recognises a crusty piece of old-style discrimination when it sees it.

It is a nation once repelled by homosexuality, but now far more uncomfortable with the morality, or perhaps just the meanness, of deeming that the inclusion of our family, friends or selves in committed same-sex relationships would debase the state of marriage.

Because why? Inappropriateness? Unworthiness? Unholiness? Most members of Parliament, if they went down that line of thinking at all, turned from it.

The debate was strikingly different from the thundering rancour during the 1986 homosexual law reform debate, and perceptibly more respectful of each other’s sincerity than in the civil union debate in 2004.

The great majority of the speakers on Wednesday were thoughtful and sincere. Both sides should recognise that.

Before 9.30pm on Wednesday, a heterosexual couple who wanted to spend the rest of their lives together had three options. They could live as de-facto husband and wife, as many do, they could enter into a civil union or they could get married.

The passing two nights ago of Labour MP Louisa Wall’s bill allowing same-sex marriage has not altered those choices for heterosexual couples. Nor has it undermined or devalued the relationship status of those already married and those who will marry in the future.

It has merely extended to gay and transgender couples all the options that are available to straight couples.

All that has changed is that same-sex couples who love each other and who want to spend their lives together are no longer excluded by law from making the ultimate commitment purely because of their sexual orientation.

Waikato Times quoted several people in favour of the bill including Maurice Williamson and Lynda Topp but didn’t seem to share the gay mood in The sun will still rise

How well the vote mirrored public opinion is hard to gauge. One recent poll showed public opposition to same-sex marriage had grown significantly since Ms Wall’s bill came before Parliament. This shift in sentiment was not necessarily caused by scaremongering by the bill’s opponents, as its champions maintained. Opponents nevertheless were still outnumbered by supporters and young people overwhelmingly favoured it.

Some opposition was rooted in homophobia. Some was based on strongly held religious beliefs. Some people simply didn’t see the need for change, because civil unions went far enough in recognising same-sex relationships.

Former National MP Marilyn Waring wasn’t altogether in a celebratory mood, however, and condemned MPs who intended voting against the bill as cowards.

She will be aware that the rights of the opponents of same-sex marriage would be corroded, no matter how disagreeably they reason their stance, if Parliamentarians could not represent them. She will be aware, too, of the paradox in displaying intolerance of intolerance.

The sanctity of marriage and even society itself will not be undermined or torn asunder. In fact, both will be strengthened by spreading even further underlying messages of hard work and togetherness implicit in the community’s official recognition of a couple, and by bringing gays further under the umbrella of conformity.

Even the churches could benefit, if they see the opportunity to spread their own message to a wider audience.

For many social conservatives, notably those of fundamental or traditional religious beliefs, marriage was, is and should be a commitment between a man and a woman. The two genders are complementary and it is only through their union that children can be made naturally.

This important institution, upon which a healthy community is built, is being weakened, even debased. Further, why should gays try to co-opt ”marriage” when gay couples have virtually all the same rights through civil union legislation? That union signals couple status through specific vows and at a ceremony.

Surely, that is sufficient without muscling in on marriage?

Even though society is changing, even though liberalism triumphed on this occasion, the genuine and thoughtful beliefs of those opposed to change should be respected. Conservative reactions to declines in the morality, standards and safety in a complex and, at times, nasty modern world are understandable. There will, indeed, be times when holding fast to traditional views and laws are the appropriate reaction.

One of the best things that will come from the passing of the Marriage Amendment Bill is that the arguments will stop and the nastiness will cease.

I’m glad to have it carved in stone and written into the law, not only for the obvious and most important reason of equality, but also so people will eventually stop voicing their hateful views.

As an openly bisexual woman there has not been a week gone by since the bill was pulled from the ballot that I have not had to listen to somebody telling me exactly why it shouldn’t be made into law, and why it is wrong to even want it to.

The people who have shared their sometimes hurtful views with me have been friends, men at the bar who I had known for less than an hour, and even a couple of members of my family.

The bill has now passed, and for reasons of equality and civil rights I am over the moon, but I can’t shift this feeling of relief.

I am relieved because now the saga is over. There will be no more debating, no national marches and no more personal harassment.

The hurtful conversations should eventually stop and we can get on with trying to love one another again.

I am pretty sure that love was meant to be the focus of the bill in the first place, and I guess that’s what made it hard to understand where all this hatred came from.

Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. My observation in my time in the House has been that there are few occasions when the public gallery is full to overflowing.

This bill has seen a full gallery at the first and second readings, and again tonight. My only other experience of that has been Treaty settlement legislation recording the agreement reached between Māori and the Crown.

In both instances the parties affected are minority groups that have been marginalised. They have been dealt with unjustly under the law. Steps are being taken to right the wrongs they have suffered, and it shows me that this process matters.

Having Parliament recognise and address injustice and unfairness matters to those affected by it. It is the start of the healing process.

This third reading is our road towards healing and including all citizens in our State institution of marriage, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Although our focus has been on Aotearoa, it is important to remember we are one country that is part of a global community discussing marriage equality. Twelve countries have already been through this process.

The US President has declared his support unequivocally.

The Queen has recently signed a Commonwealth charter that explicitly opposes all forms of discrimination, which she describes as emphasising inclusiveness.

The UK, led by its Prime Minister, has introduced legislation.

But marriage equality is only one issue. There is still a lot of work to be done to address discrimination against our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex—or LGBTI—communities.

Closer to home, many of our Pacific neighbours still criminalise homosexuality; so too do the countries of our new migrant communities. We need to understand these heritage identities and how they contribute to this debate.

As the indigenous people of Aotearoa, we can acknowledge that takatāpui have always been part of our history and culture, and that is the case for many indigenous people around the world: fa‘fafine, akava‘ine, fakaleiti, and mahu vahine are words that go back in time to identifying our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex communities.

They are part of our Pacific heritage and need to be acknowledged. And we need to learn from history.

Marriage laws have continually been used as a tool of oppression.

The Nuremberg laws in 1935 prohibited marriage between German nationals and Jews.

The South African Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriage Act prohibited marriage and sexual contact between races until they were repealed in 1985.

Forty US states prohibited interracial marriage.

Women lost all property rights and their identity upon marriage.

Excluding a group in society from marriage is oppressive and unacceptable. There is no justification for the prohibitions of the past based on religion, race, or gender.

Today we are embarrassed and appalled by these examples, and in every instance it was action by the State. This is not about church teachings or philosophy. It never has been.

It is about the State excluding people from the institution of marriage because of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and that is no different from the actions taken in these historical examples.

Principles of justice and equality are not served if the key civil institution of marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only.

In the landmark Ontario decision, Justice LaForme wrote: “Any ‘alternative status’ that nonetheless provides for the same financial benefits as marriage in and of itself amounts to segregation.

This case is about access to a deeply meaningful [social] institution—it is about equal participation in the activity, expression, security, and integrity of marriage. Any ‘alternative’ to marriage, in my opinion simply offers the insult of formal equivalency without the … promise of substantive equality.”

Ever since Brown v Board of Education in 1954, the “separate but equal” doctrine has been seen as segregation and contrary to achieving equality.

I want to emphasise again what this bill does not do.

It does not legalise criminal offences. In fact, it is clear the definition proposed in this amendment is a union of two people only.

It does not force any minister or celebrant to marry a couple against their wishes. Section 29 remains in force and has been strengthened by the Government Administration Committee amendment.

It does not change adoption laws. Gay couples have adopted children for many years, but the law has not recognised that parenting reality. Children of same-sex relationships have not been allowed to have both parents’ names on their birth certificate.

The injustice and pain of this was made clear by an email I received, and I am able to share it with the House. It reads:

“My partner and I had been together for 7 years when we decided to start a family. When our daughter was born, my partner’s name was on her birth certificate as her birth mother.

When our daughter was 13, my partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer. We talked to our solicitor and found out that the only way I could adopt our daughter was if the relationship with her mum was legally terminated. How could we possibly do that to a child who was faced with her mum dying? Instead I applied for, and was granted, guardianship.

When my daughter turned 18, the guardianship expired. It was only when my own parents died that it struck home with me that my daughter and I had no legal relationship, despite me having been her parent all her life. We talked it over and I applied to adopt her.

Fortunately, all this happened before she turned 20, because I believe it might have been too late. It was the right thing to do but still hard on her. She gets a new birth certificate and her mum no longer legally exists. This is just so ridiculous and so wrong.

If your bill had been law when my partner was still alive, then we could have married and our daughter would have both her parents recorded as such.”

Under this bill both women could have been spouses and recorded on their daughter’s birth certificate. Without this bill that is a privilege limited to heterosexual married couples only.

In our society the meaning of marriage is universal. It is a declaration of love and commitment to a special person. Law that allows all people to enjoy that state is the right thing to do.

Law that prohibits people from enjoying that state is just wrong.

Those who celebrate religious or cultural marriage are absolutely unaffected by this bill. That has never been part of the State’s marriage law and it never should be.

There is another similarity between this bill and Treaty settlement legislation: the quality and tone of the debate within this House.

I believe that is the result of our effective cross-party working group with Tau Henare and Kevin Hague. Conrad Reyners, national spokesperson for the Campaign for Marriage Equality, was also involved, and with Cameron, Jacqui, Fedora, Tony, Natalie, Kurt, and Andrew, has kept the issue alive and relevant.

I am also grateful to Megan Campbell, Sean Wallace, and David Farrar for their support and work with MPs, and my executive assistant, Mereana Ruri, for helping coordinate this activity.

I would also like to acknowledge the leadership across the House, from the Prime Minister, who expressed his support early on, as did the leader of the Labour Party, David Shearer, and we have seen leadership by John Banks, Peter Dunne, Hone Harawira, Pita Sharples, and Tariana Turia.

I also acknowledge the Greens, who from the outset have taken a supportive position as a party. For them it was not a conscience vote but a manifesto commitment.

There are many individuals and groups within our communities and churches who have continually addressed the facts and made it real.

I particularly thank the youth wings of all political parties and student unions around the country. The messages have remained positive.

I am very proud to be a member of a community that has stood up to be counted with such dignity and reason.

A personal thanks to everyone who has contacted me by email, through Facebook, particularly Craig Young and those in the community offering support and often just saying thanks.

Finally, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou te whānau, and to my darling crew, thank you for your work and for sharing this journey with me. Nothing can counteract the very real negative consequences of not passing this bill, but nothing could make me more proud to be a New Zealander than passing this bill.

It is an honour to represent your country and the people of New Zealand. I am proud to be a member of this 50th Parliament, which will continue New Zealand’s proud human rights tradition.

I thank my colleagues for simply doing what is fair, just, and right. Kia ora.

One of the good things about bills on social issues that allow a conscience vote is you get MPs speaking from personal experience and sometimes with passion, sometimes with humour. It can also throw up surprises.

One of the surprises in last night’s Marriage Amendment Bill was National MP Maurice Williamson.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I too will be taking a split call with my colleague Jami-Lee Ross. It is sort of the young and the vibrant versus the old and the boring. Members of the House will be forced to choose which one is which.

I want to first of all congratulate Louisa Wall for this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and I want to say that the good news about years spent in this Parliament is that you learn to deflect all of the dreadful fire and brimstone accusations that are going to happen.

I have had a reverend in my local electorate call and say that the gay onslaught will start the day after this bill is passed. We are really struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like.

We do not know whether it will come down the Pakuranga Highway as a series of troops, or whether it will be a gas that flows in over the electorate and blocks us all in.

I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act.I found that quite interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life.

Hon Amy Adams: “Cell-i-bacy”.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: “Cell-i-bacy”. OK, we will go with “Cell-i-bacy”. OK. I have not done it, so I do not know what it is about. I also had a letter telling me that I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity.

That was a bad mistake, because I have got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics. I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on. I assumed the furnace to be at 5,000 degrees. I will last for just on 2.1 seconds. It is hardly eternity. What do you think?

I also heard some more disgusting claims about adoption. Well, I have got three fantastic adopted kids. I know how good adoption is, and I have found some of the claims just disgraceful. I found some of the bullying tactics really evil. I gave up being scared of bullies when I was at primary school.

However, a huge amount of the opposition was from moderates, from people who were concerned, who were seriously worried, about what this bill might do to the fabric of our society. I respect their concern. I respect their worry. They were worried about what it might to do to their families and so on.

Let me repeat to them now that all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing.

We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign State. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector for ever.

We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money. I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed.

I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine. We are all in that category.

But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise.

The sun will still rise tomorrow.

Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything.

Your mortgage will not grow.

You will not have skin diseases or rashes, or toads in your bed.

The world will just carry on.

So do not make this into a big deal.

This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.

Finally, can I say that one of the messages I had was that this bill was the cause of our drought—this bill was the cause of our drought.

Well, if any of you follow my Twitter account, you will see that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning it was pouring with rain. We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate.

It has to be a sign. It has to be a sign. If you are a believer, it is certainly a sign.

Can I finish—for all those who are concerned about this—with a quote from the Bible. It is Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of the musical Cats, but never mind. The quote is Deuteronomy 1:29: “Be ye not afraid.”

I don’t know if Colin Craig will find enough people with enough enthusiasm who want to continue the gay marriage/marriage equality debate indefinitely, but he says he will carry on the fight against gay marriage.

The Conservative Party believes the fight against gay marriage will continue after tonight’s reading, even though it looks likely to pass.

The third reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill gets underway in Parliament this evening – with many heading for the public gallery to witness the historic moment.

It would make New Zealand the 13th country in the world to allow gay marriage.

But Conservative Party leader Colin Craig says even if the bill does pass through – it won’t be the end for those campaigning against the idea.

“The way to affect change from here is through a binding referenda.

“The Conservative Party is the party that wants to bring in binding referenda, and if we get enough support at the next election we’ll be doing that.”

Even if his party gets into Parliament next year they would have to get enough support for a binding referendum from other MPs (very unlikely).

By the time a referendum was held, if he gets a favourable result, there will have been two or three years of gay marriages. Would he annul the marriages? Or just stop any more gay marriages? Either would be bizarre.

Craig seems to be using it as an ongoing vote rallying tool, like he has used smacking – both with little realistic chance of changing anything.

But here’s the problem: The notion of traditional marriage that these conservatives are so vigorously defending is not historically accurate. Pundit Bill Kristol recently fell into this trap when he complained that supporters of marriage equality want to overthrow “thousands of years of history and what the great religions teach” about marriage.

In actuality, traditional marriage — as it existed centuries ago — is not worth defending.

Let’s start with concubines, also known as mistresses, who were owned by husbands in ancient cultures and are mentioned without disapproval throughout the Hebrew Bible. Then there’s the practice of polygamy, which was the norm in biblical times. Back then, tradition forced rape victims to marry their rapist. Tradition also called for victorious soldiers to make female war prisoners their wives and concubines.

In the Middle Ages, marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons, and girls could be forced to marry when they were as young as 12 years old. British Common Law held a man to be “lord and master” of his wife who was subject to “domestic chastisement.” Wife beating was legal and common in England until the late 1800s.

In colonial America, wife beating was illegal, but marriage equaled patriarchy. A wife had no legal rights or existence apart from her husband. Any money or property she inherited belonged to him. Their children were his as well. Wife abuse was not uncommon.

n 1864 a North Carolina court heard the case of a woman abused by her husband because she had called him names. The court ruled that:

“A husband is responsible for the acts of his wife, and he is required to govern his household, and for that purpose the law permits him to use towards his wife such a degree of force as is necessary to control an unruly temper and make her behave herself; and unless some permanent injury be inflicted, or there be an excess of violence, or such a degree of cruelty as shows that it is inflicted to gratify his own bad passions, the law will not invade the domestic forum, or go behind the curtain.”

That is not dissimilar to New Zealand – that sort of court attitude lingered through most of last century, and some attitudes like it linger on still amongst a minority.

It wasn’t until the 20th century, when women fought for and won the right to vote, to sign contracts on their own, to obtain financial credit, to have access to contraception and more, that these earlier notions of traditional marriage began to crumble, and something resembling the institution we recognize today began to emerge.

But each of the advances for women’s equality was fought by forces that considered them an invasion of the sacred private realm of the home and an assault on the family. Even so, these advances became part of law and culture and are now the norm. In fact, they are embedded in the institution that conservatives are now so fiercely defending.

Marriage has always been dynamic. For the most part, its evolution has been positive. Marriage today is far more mutually supportive, egalitarian and secure for children than it was centuries ago. Take heart, conservatives. The institution of marriage does change and adapt over the years, and that is what makes it endure.

We can’t be sure what the effects of gay marriage will have but if the history of marriage evolution is anything to go by most people will accept as normal what not long ago seemed controversial.

Concerns are continually being raised about the Marriage Equality Bill, mostly by Family First and some religious interests.

As soon as one concern is addressed another is found. These are now obscure possibilities, and it seems to be extremely improbable they would arise. Green MP Kevin Hagie addresses the latest issues, repeated here in full:

by Kevin Hague

One of the themes winding its way through the debate over marriage equality is the relationship between the church and the state. New Zealand has no official religion and great effort has been expended to keep the church out of law-making and the State out of religious matters.

So marriage presents an interesting set of issues, because it is both a religious institution (a sacrament in some denominations) and also a civil one. Two possible approaches to reconciling differences are to remove the church or the state entirely from marriage, but in New Zealand we have taken the view that both have legitimate roles.

While we speak of “the church”, that in fact conceals a considerable complexity. There is a multitude of faiths, denominations within faiths, and congregations within denominations.

During the course of the debate over marriage equality it has become abundantly clear that opinions and practices concerning marriage vary very considerably.

While the loudest church voice in the marriage equality debate has been from those Christian churches who wish not to marry same-sex couples, the select committee has also heard from many churches who wish to be able to marry same-sex couples and who are prevented from doing so by the current law.

When the Bill was introduced, its proponent, Louisa Wall, was absolutely clear that her intent was not to limit freedom of religious expression, and that has been the Select Committee’s driver also.

Some submitters, largely influenced by the lobby group Family First, which spread propaganda through conservative churches, believed religious freedom would be impacted in three ways. I respond to these concerns in this post:

1. Churches will not be forced to marry same-sex couples against their will

Section 29 of the Marriage Act authorises celebrants to marry couples, but explicitly does not oblige them to do so. One can easily imagine that there are many grounds upon which a particular church or a particular celebrant might object to marrying a particular couple, and since 1955 this provision has enabled them to decline to do so.

In all of this time I am not aware of any decision to decline being challenged through the Courts, and it’s easy to see why: couples who wish to marry are looking for a positive experience, not one carried out grudgingly, against the celebrant’s will.

Adding to the categories of couples who can marry does not alter, in any way, the law around celebrants declining to marry.

However, Family First found a barrister who thought there was a chance Courts would find that declining to marry a couple on the grounds of sexual orientation would be a breach of the Human Rights Act in relation to the provision of goods and services.

While the Human Rights Commission – who would be the body to investigate any complaint of discrimination – has been crystal clear that it would not uphold a complaint of discrimination against a celebrant who declined to solemnise a couple, and the majority of legal opinion supports the HRC position, some reputable legal sources have also said that it’s not possible to say that no court would interpret the existing law in the way that Family First (and many religious folk) fear.

Most of the submissions against Louisa’s Bill expressed the fear that churches would be forced to marry same-sex couples even if it offends their genuine religious belief.

While the real risk of this was assessed as being very small indeed, it was clearly nobody’s intention (sorry, not quite nobody – there was one submission arguing churches should be compelled to marry any couples who wished to marry and were legally entitled to do so) that the state should compel churches to act against their beliefs.

For that reason the select committee added a clause to put beyond all doubt that any celebrant acting on behalf of or appointed by a church can refuse to marry any couple.

The churches who were concerned and who have examined the revised Bill appear to now accept that there is no risk that they will be required to do anything differently. Unfortunately some have now shifted their ground and are now professing concern for independent celebrants who are not acting on the authority of the church.

The fact that some churches (and, of course, Bob McCoskrie and Colin Craig) have shifted ground in this way indicates that their actual position is a homophobic one, and that the ‘arguments’ being used are just window dressing to disguise that. For the sake of completeness though:

The body representing independent celebrants reported an overwhelming majority of its members support the Bill;

The committee received perhaps two submissions from independent celebrants who said they did not wish to solemnise marriages for same-sex couples, in both cases because of personal religious faith;

The Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it would not uphold a discrimination complaint against such celebrants;

If the HRC decision were appealed to a higher Court, most lawyers say the appeal would clearly fail, particularly if the refusal was because of religious or ethical reasons;

It’s hard to imagine a celebrant refusing to marry a same-sex couple because of sheer prejudice (“I hate gays”) without an ethical or religious basis, but I concede that if such a case ever arose it would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court made of the legal balance between the explicit statement not obliging celebrants in the Marriage Act against the more general requirement not to discriminate in the provision of goods and services in the Human Rights Act, and the Bill of Rights Act.

Why on earth would a couple go this rigmarole rather than just finding one of the vast majority of celebrants who wants to marry them?

and let’s not forget that the position of independent celebrants is very clearly not about the relationship of church and state, or religious freedom. Independent celebrants act as agents of the state, with no qualification.

2. Churches will not be forced to say anything different

As submissions started to come in, we started to see an argument that we hadn’t seen before. Section 56 of the Marriage Act made it an offence to deny the validity of someone’s marriage.

This provision, which so far as we can tell has never been used, finds its origin in the belief of the Catholic Church back in the 1950s that only marriages carried out in the Catholic Church were valid.

Again, some churches and their adherents had been whipped up into a fear that this provision would be used once Louisa’s bill was passed to persecute and imprison those whose religious belief is that marriage should only be between a woman and a man.

While this seemed far-fetched, there was certainly no intent for this to occur, so the select committee has simply recommended the repeal of this section, which seems to serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

3. No change is being made to the law around use of church buildings

Some churches and others could really do with a refresher on the human rights law that New Zealand has had since the 1970s, including the updated prohibited grounds for discrimination that were added 20 years ago.

If a church makes its church hall available to the public for hire, if someone sells professional photography services, or if someone sells flowers for a living it has been against the law for them to decline to provide their goods and services on the basis of the sexual orientation of their customer for the past 20 years, and on the basis of the customer’s gender for almost 40 years. Louisa’s bill does not change this in any way.

That doesn’t affect churches’ religious space, of course, and again who would want a wedding venue where they weren’t welcome, or a photographer or florist who was unsupportive? Once again these are not real arguments, but are red herrings designed to divert the eye away from the real source of opposition – prejudice.
The select committee has ensured that the State does not encroach on the religious belief or practice of churches. They will not be required to do or say anything different. But, in allowing those churches, denominations and congregations that DO support marriage equality to be able to exercise their beliefs too, this Bill will in fact extend religious freedom.